DEFENCE

Mark Lancaster: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a complex programme was announced through the better defence estate strategy. On the specific issue he raises, I am told that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) intends to visit shortly.

Mark Lancaster: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has certainly made clear that he has not ruled out the option of terminating the contract. However, in recent months we have seen dramatic improvements in the performance of that contract, partly because of the money that Capita has put in—its own money—to ensure that that is the case.

Mark Lancaster: I am certainly not prepared to resign from my role as a member of the Army Reserve, because that would really not help matters, would it? The hon. Lady over-eggs the pudding slightly by saying that the numbers are in freefall. Yes, numbers have reduced but, with the highest number of applications on record in January, we have already explained why we are confident that the numbers will increase. Crucially, the Army remains at 93% manning and can meet all of its operational commitments.

Tobias Ellwood: My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary underlined the importance of geographically locally based charities. It is so important that the message gets out that support is available to veterans. The biggest challenge we face is veterans not being aware of where to go for help, so I am very grateful for that work in his constituency.

Rachael Maskell: On return from his tour of Afghanistan in 2007, my constituent, Robert Duncan, experienced post-traumatic stress disorder. It has taken this long to have a conversation—that is all he wants—with those under whom he served. Why cannot he have that conversation?

Tobias Ellwood: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she has done on this issue as chair of the APPG. I should be more than delighted to meet her. It is important that we carry out the necessary scrutiny and are seen to be doing so, and that we do what is best for our veterans.

Richard Graham: In terms of the effectiveness of recruitment my right hon. Friend will know that we recruit many armed forces servicemen and women from the Commonwealth, but is he aware of the Royal British Legion campaign to eliminate the  current high costs of their applications for indefinite leave to remain, to which they are eligible after four years’ service? This can cost almost £10,000 for a family of four; does my right hon. Friend agree it is time that this issue was tackled in order that we recruit more from the Commonwealth?

Mike Gapes: Will the Government make it clear that North Korea cannot play games, as it has done for more than 20 years, just wanting to get sanctions lifted or get economic support from outside and then reverting back to its old policies, and that there will be consequences internationally if it does that?

Melanie Onn: Over half the new offshore wind sites that the Government have announced they will build will affect aviation radar systems. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), responded to a written question of mine on 20 February saying that the solution is
“challenging and requires upgraded or new technologies, which are not currently part of the equipment programme.”
Does that not simply mean that the Government’s ability to deliver on that sector deal is going to be hampered?

EUROPEAN COUNCIL

Theresa May: I expressed my frustration with our collective failure to take a decision, but I know that many Members across the House are frustrated too, and we all have difficult jobs to do. People on all sides of the debate hold passionate views, and I respect those differences. I thank all those colleagues who have supported the deal so far, and those who have taken the time to meet with me to discuss their concerns.
I hope we can all agree that we are now at the moment of decision, and in doing so we must confront the reality of the hard choices before us: unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen; no Brexit must not happen; and a slow Brexit that extends article 50 beyond 22 May, forces the British people to take part in European elections, and gives up control of any of our borders, laws, money or trade, is not a Brexit that will bring the British people together. I know that the deal I have put forward is a compromise—it seeks to deliver on the referendum and retain trust in our democracy, while also respecting the concerns of those who voted to remain—but if this House can back it, we could be out of the European Union in less than two months. There would no further extensions, no threat to Brexit and no risk of a no deal. That, I believe, is the way to deliver the Brexit that the British people voted for. I commend this statement to the House.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for advance copy of her statement and for the meetings that we have had in recent days.
The Government’s approach to Brexit has now become a national embarrassment. After two years of failure and broken promises after broken promises, the Prime Minister finally accepted the inevitable last week, voted to extend article 50 and went to Brussels to negotiate. Last week’s summit represented another negotiating failure for the Prime Minister. Her proposals were rejected and new terms were imposed on her. We now have an extension until mid-April, or 22 May, but despite the clearly expressed will of this House, we still face the prospect of a disastrous no-deal Brexit. This is even more remarkable given that the Minister for the Cabinet Office told this very Chamber that
“seeking such a short and, critically, one-off extension would be downright reckless”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 566.]
This failure has been compounded by the Prime Minister’s attempts last week to pin the blame for this debacle on others. It was wholly inappropriate, last Wednesday, for her to try to pit the people against MPs—elected MPs doing their duty to hold the Government of the day to account, which is what Parliament exists for. In a climate of heightened emotions where MPs from all parts of the House have received threats and intimidation, I hope that she will further reflect and think again about making what I believe to be such dangerous and irresponsible statements.
Every step of the way along this process the Government have refused to reach out, refused to listen and refused to find a consensus that can represent the views of the whole country, not just those of the Conservative party. Large parts of our country continue to be ignored by this Government. It is no wonder that so many people felt compelled to march on the streets or to sign petitions over the weekend. Even the most ardent of leavers think that this Government have failed. It is easy to understand the frustration at this chaos—it exists in this House, in Brussels, and across the country.
The Government have no plan. For them, it is all about putting the Conservative party before the country. Given that the Prime Minister has admitted that she does not have the numbers for her deal, will she accept  today that her deal is dead and that the House should not have to waste its time giving the same answer for a third time?
The Prime Minister has succeeded in unifying two sides against her deal. The CBI and TUC’s unprecedented joint statement last week demanded a plan B that protects jobs, workers, industry and communities. Does the Prime Minister have a plan B? The Government have failed, and they have let the people down whether they voted leave or remain. The country cannot afford to continue in this Tory crisis. It is time for Parliament to take control, which is why, later today, we will be backing the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).
You made it clear last week, Mr Speaker, that, for the Prime Minister to bring back her deal, there must be significant changes. There are none. Rather than trying to engineer a way to bring back the same twice-rejected deal, will she instead allow plans—rather than fight plans—for indicative votes? She cannot accept that her deal does not have the numbers and also stand in the way of finding an alternative that may have the numbers. It is ridiculous to suggest that Parliament taking control is “overturning democratic institutions”. It is not; it is Parliament doing its democratic job of holding Government to account. Will the Prime Minister agree to abide by the outcome of these indicative votes, if they take place on Wednesday?
The Labour party will continue cross-party discussions to find a way forward, and I thank Members who have met colleagues of mine and myself to have those discussions. I believe that there is support in this House for a deal—one that is based on an alternative that protects jobs and the economy through a customs union, provides full single market access, and allows us to continue to benefit from participation in vital agencies and security measures. If the Government refuse to accept this, we will support measures for a public vote to stop no deal or a chaotic Tory deal.
The Government have had more than two years to find a solution, and they have failed. It is time that we put an end to this, move on from the chaos and failure, and begin to clean up the mess. It is time for Parliament to work together and agree on a plan B. If the Prime Minister is brave, she will help to facilitate this. If not, Parliament must send a clear message in the coming days. I hope that where the Government have failed, this House can and will succeed.

Ian Blackford: I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her statement.
We are in a crisis, but one of the Prime Minister’s own making. Her ill-judged speech before she departed for Brussels concluded that everyone is to blame but herself, trying to put herself on the side of the people and blaming parliamentarians. It was Trumpesque. We do not need such raw populism at a time like this—it is truly flabbergasting. Will she now apologise for blaming parliamentarians in the way that she did?
The Prime Minister needs to be reminded: she is supposed to be leading a country. No one on these Opposition Benches thinks she can deliver. Her Back Benchers do not think she can deliver. People right across the United Kingdom do not think she can deliver. Prime Minister, time is up. Today is about parliamentarians taking back control. People at home are watching, and they are ashamed of this Parliament, ashamed of this Government, ashamed of the embarrassment that British politics has become. Today, Parliament must move to find a consensus. We must come together and protect the interests of citizens across Scotland and all other parts of the United Kingdom. I say to Members: we still have a choice.
I want to ask the Prime Minister now, with all sincerity—will she respect the will of Parliament and reject no deal? While she is telling us that our votes do not count, Privy Counsellors are being given briefings by her Government, and those briefings are talking about catastrophe and the real risks that there are to the United Kingdom. It is the Prime Minister who is threatening the people of the United Kingdom with no deal, and a no-deal exit that this Parliament has already rejected. What is the point of us all sitting in this Chamber and voting in debates when the Prime Minister thinks she can ignore parliamentary sovereignty? What a disgrace—what an insult to this place, because if our votes do not count, then frankly we may as well just go home.
If this Prime Minister is telling the people of Scotland that our votes did not count when we voted to remain, well, we know what the answer is: the day is coming when the people of Scotland will vote for independence and we will be an independent country in the European Union. So will the Prime Minister tell us, do our votes count? Are they binding on the Government or is this just a puppet show? If that is the case, this is the greatest assault on democracy inflicted by any Prime Minister. If Members of Parliament are prepared to tolerate that, then shame on them—shame on them. Scotland will not be dragged out of the European Union by this Prime Minister. From the very beginning of this process, Scotland has been ignored, and now we learn that Parliament will once again be ignored.
At the weekend, I was proud and privileged to take part in a historic march in London. I was proud to stand with the people, alongside Scotland’s First Minister, and demand that the Government listen to the people. Let me tell the Prime Minister this: she said that no deal is the alternative; well, we on these Benches will move to  revoke, because Scottish parliamentarians have made sure that we have that power, and we will stop her driving us off a cliff edge. Over 1 million people marched to have the chance to vote again to stop this chaos. Prime Minister, why are you not listening? The Prime Minister must end this madness. Put it to the people—let us have a people’s vote.

Theresa May: Today is not the first time that the position of Governments about Northern Ireland in a no-deal situation has been raised. It was raised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the debate on no deal, which took place nearly two weeks ago. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that a number of statements are made and have been made by individuals about the situation in relation to the border in Northern Ireland. If we look at the detail of what the European Union has said, we see that it has made clear that European Union law would need to be adhered to in any circumstance in which there was no deal. We ourselves have said, and the right hon. Gentleman is aware of this, that we would ensure that we were moving towards a period of time—because of the legal situation it could only be for a temporary period—of minimal checks with exceptions, but the legal position is different given the necessity to be able to have certain checks taking place. The European Union has been clear that EU law would need to be applied in all of these circumstances.

Angela Eagle: The Prime Minister appears to have ruled out bringing back her deal for an indefinite amount of time, and yet we have only two weeks before we crash out without a deal. She has said that she will not necessarily take notice of this House’s indicative vote process, and she has also said that she will not continue as Prime Minister if we remain in the EU beyond 30 June. The situation seems to be pointing directly to a prime ministerial dash for no deal. Will she say that that is not what she wants and tell us when she is going to abandon her deal rather than keep postponing the vote on it?

Kate Hoey: The Prime Minister has said once again that the European Union is not going to, under any circumstances, look again at the withdrawal agreement, so I agree with her that indicative votes are a nonsense, because, in the end, they are talking about the future relationship and not the withdrawal agreement. Why will she not start to prepare properly for what I do not call a “no deal”? It is not a no-deal; it is a different type of deal that would take us out. [Interruption.] It is a World Trade Organisation deal. Why will she not continue to prepare for that, and to ensure that, in the end, what really matters is the people’s vote, not what this Parliament says?

Stephen Crabb: I have heard many colleagues on the Opposition Benches say that they oppose the deal not because they do not support the terms of the withdrawal agreement—in fact, many of them go to pains to say they do support the terms of the withdrawal agreement—but because they have problems with the political declaration. Has the Prime Minister considered providing the House with the opportunity to have votes on the terms of the withdrawal agreement and then on the political declaration, to enable us to come to a view on whether the terms of our departure are acceptable to a majority of the House?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The opportunity will come for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the debate that follows this statement, to set out in a little more detail how the Government see the processes going forward over the next few days. It is of course the case that the European Union Council has made clear that the withdrawal agreement remains closed and will not be reopened. It is against that background that Parliament would look at any options it brought forward.

Anna Soubry: I can say on behalf of a lot of right hon. and hon. Members that I was proud to march with the People’s Vote—the 1 million people from all over the United Kingdom, of all backgrounds and all generations, who came to London on a precious Saturday because they want this matter to go back to the people. The people of this country are crying out for leadership and businesses are crying out for certainty, but in this Prime Minister, they are not getting either of those things. She has been asked twice now by hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House: come 12 April, if her withdrawal agreement has not been passed by this House, what is her plan B? She still has not told us. Is it going to be no deal or a lengthy extension? Prime Minister, just answer the question.

Mary Creagh: The Prime Minister’s deal has been rejected twice and no deal has been rejected twice by this Parliament, yet she stands here today threatening that we leave with no deal on 12 April if her deal is not approved this week and saying that she will whip her colleagues tonight to vote against the very process for which the EU has granted that extension. We are now in the levels of the theatre of the absurd. A million people stood in Parliament Square demanding their right to be heard. If MPs can have three votes in three months, why can the people not have two votes in three years?

Bob Neill: I have voted for the withdrawal agreement before and I will willingly back the Prime Minister and vote for it again, but I owe it to my constituents, if that should not pass, to have the opportunity to debate in full the alternatives.  The Prime Minister urges us against the so-called Letwin proposal tonight, but says that the Government will make time for alternatives to be considered. Can I press her again to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) did, if that is to be the case, when?

Sammy Wilson: Prime Minister, the current difficulty that you face hangs around the withdrawal agreement and the way in which Northern Ireland has been pulled into these discussions. This weekend the Irish Government made clear that the whole premise of the withdrawal agreement is based on a foundation of sand. There will be no checks along the Irish border; therefore there will be no threat to peace in Northern Ireland; therefore there will be no disruption to the island of Ireland. Today we are told that this is because Northern Ireland is not prepared, yet all the preparations that are made by central Government apply to Northern Ireland. When are you going to stop using Northern Ireland as an excuse, and do you realise that the importance of this agreement to delivering Brexit, and also to the Union of the United Kingdom, is such that we will not be used in any scare tactics to push this through?

Christine Jardine: The Prime Minister has told this House on numerous occasions that she is committed to delivering on the will of the people as it was expressed almost three years ago. However, given that 1 million people took to the streets at the weekend, that more than 5 million have signed a petition, and that anyone who has ever sat on these Benches knows that the will of the British people can change, does not the Prime Minister agree the time has come to check whether the will of the people has in fact changed and whether they want something different from what they wanted two and a half years ago?

Theresa May: I have now answered that question on a number of occasions, so I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave earlier.

Theresa May: Although I have indicated that we would whip against the amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), if it were to pass, that would lead to some votes taking place on Wednesday. The commitment that the Government have made is that there would be opportunities over this week and next week. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated that we would facilitate the opportunity for the House to make those decisions in the two weeks following last week’s European Council.

Theresa May: We have, of course, been working with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to look at the ways in which we can ensure that there is that commitment to the people of Northern Ireland that there will not be that different treatment. We were very clear with the European Union on the need to have a UK-wide customs territory in the backstop not an Northern Ireland-only customs territory. We continue to maintain our commitment to ensure that Northern Ireland is treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Diana R. Johnson: May I start by paying tribute to the bravery of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and the many other hon. Members who have suffered lots of attacks over the past few months? In her statement, the Prime Minister said about what she said on Wednesday:
“I expressed my frustration with our collective failure to take a decision”.
I do not think that it is actually correct—it was an attack on Members of Parliament doing their job scrutinising the Government at a time when tensions in the country are already heightened and MPs are accused of being traitors. In my constituency, the majority of people who have asked me about this do not want to me to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal. So will she now do the right thing and apologise to Members of Parliament for what she said on Wednesday evening?

Hugh Gaffney: Prime Minister, under your watch your deal has failed. The UK has seen austerity rise and food bank use rise, and now we hear that the Government will delay the repeal of the Swedish derogation, leaving thousands of agency staff financially worse off. So will plan B include any resignations?

Patricia Gibson: People are very concerned and alarmed by this Brexit chaos in North Ayrshire and Arran and the UK as a whole. This is a time of crisis, and people in Scotland and across the UK are represented in these Brexit talks by a Prime Minister and a Government who EU leaders at the weekend described as “evasive” and “confused”, in the final days before Brexit. Does she think that that description by EU leaders inspires confidence in those across the UK who are worried about Brexit?

Theresa May: As I have indicated to others—and as she knows, because we have previously sat down and discussed these matters—I am always happy to reach out and talk to Members across the House. I have a different opinion from her on a second referendum, because I believe we should deliver on the first.

POINTS OF ORDER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (TODAY)

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Anne Main: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has mentioned the 17.4 million people, many of whom had never voted before, who took the trouble to vote leave in the referendum. Given the recent votes in the House—on no deal, the withdrawal agreement and the second vote—and given that the Prime Minister now seems to have taken no deal off the table, for some of us, there are different options to think about. It is vital that the withdrawal agreement comes back before the House because, if no deal is off the table, much worse deals might well be put forward by this remainer House and those of us who do not wish to see those happen will feel we have a very bad situation.

Kenneth Clarke: On the Government’s commitment to avoid no deal, in line with the votes, my right hon. Friend has acceded that the Government do accept last week’s votes, which is in line with the constitutional convention that the Government do not proceed with policies that are rejected by this House of Commons. He has agreed that. Then he said that we therefore either pass the withdrawal agreement, which I have voted for, or ask for an extension, that being the only remedy presumably, but, as he rightly says, we cannot guarantee the Europeans would accept that. However, in line with the wishes of the House and what is now Government policy, if we are driven by the more hard-line people in this House to that circumstance, obviously, the Government must revoke, in the hope that we start the whole process again once the House and everybody else has come back to their senses and found a consensus on how to proceed on the question of our future relations with the rest of the world.

David Lidington: I am going to make some progress.
During its meeting last week, the European Council approved the legally binding assurances in relation to the Northern Ireland backstop that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had negotiated with President Juncker a fortnight ago. As my right hon. Friend has explained, that should give additional assurance to Members that in the unlikely event that the backstop were ever used it would be only temporary, and that the United Kingdom and the European Union would begin work immediately to replace it with alternative arrangements by the end of December 2020. The Council also agreed—subject to a vote in this House—to approve the withdrawal agreement this week. The date of our departure from the EU would be extended to 22 May to provide time for the House to agree and ratify a Brexit deal, and to pass the necessary legislation to make that possible.
However, the Council agreed that in the event that the House did not approve the withdrawal agreement this week, article 50 should be extended only until 12 April. At that point, we would have two options: we could leave without a deal, or we would need to have agreed an alternative plan for a longer extension with the European Union, and the EU would have to have accepted that. It is very clear from what EU leaders and the EU institutions have said that such a longer extension would require elections to the European Parliament to be held in the United Kingdom.
On 14 March, I told the House that in the event that Members had not approved a meaningful vote by 20 March and agreed a timetable for the withdrawal agreement Bill, the Government would recognise that the House would require time to consider the potential ways forward. The Government stand by the commitment that I set out that day that in such a scenario, having consulted the usual channels at that time, they would facilitate a process, in the two weeks after the March European Council, to allow the House to seek a majority on the way forward. Since then my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have acted on that commitment, and have engaged constructively with Members on both sides of the House in recent days. Between us we have met leaders of all parties as well as other senior parliamentarians, and that process is ongoing; my right hon. Friend met the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. Those discussions will continue.

David Lidington: The difference between myself and my hon. Friend on this occasion is that I take the view, and the Government take the view, that amendment (a) would upset the balance between legislature and Executive in a way that would set an unwelcome precedent, and it is for that reason that we are not supporting it.

David Lidington: I cannot give a commitment immediately for that or of that level of detail, but I will have further discussions and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union might be able to respond to the point in greater detail in his winding-up speech.

Bill Cash: As I said earlier to the Prime Minister, the commencement order has not yet been brought into force, so will my right hon. Friend give me the lawful authority whereby the decision endorsed by the authority of Sir Tim Barrow was consistent the vires of the original enactment under section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018?

David Lidington: No, I will not give way, because I want to try to give my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) the short answer that I promised him a second ago.
The purpose of the statutory instrument is to reflect the extension agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Government will now therefore delay the commencement of the repeal of the European Communities Act. A commencement order is required under section 25(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act to give effect to this repeal. The timing of that commencement order will depend on the date on which we leave the European Union. As a matter of both EU and international law, the effect of the European Council decision is that we are not leaving European Union on 29 March. It would therefore be wrong to commence the repeal contained in section 1 of the withdrawal Act on that date. In making that change, having sought an extension, the Government have acted on the basis of the resolutions that were passed by this House. The House did not want to leave on 29 March without a deal, and it explicitly voted in favour of the Government seeking an extension to article 50.

Bill Cash: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands that although amendment (a) in is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), in reality there are only 14 or 15 Conservative names on that amendment so, to all intents and purposes, it is the number of Opposition Members who would carry it. How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the charge that that is inconsistent with our constitutionally accountable Government under Standing Order No. 14? How does he answer the point that an attempt to do so would effectively seek to reverse both the referendum result and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 itself?

Alison McGovern: I am glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend that the Labour party will whip against no deal, because we are talking about my constituents’ jobs. Does he agree that these questions about the constitution are not new? By definition under our constitution the thing that wins votes in this House is the Government, and it was hardly Back-Benchers who broke that convention.

Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the Prime Minister had not tried to exclude Parliament completely from having a say—she had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the Supreme Court to allow us to legislate on triggering article 50—and if she had had a proper cross-party process and a national debate with a Green Paper and a proper White Paper, instead of springing things on this House at the last possible minute having already been decided, she would have considerably more good will in this place and there would have been a chance for us to do what should be done to get the withdrawal agreement through Parliament because it would have been done properly? We are now scrambling at the last possible minute simply because she has not done the job properly.

Paul Sweeney: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful point about the absurdity of an ill-designed referendum that asked for a simplistic answer to a very complex question. Nobody can really understand what that 52% who voted leave wanted because it was so ill-defined and so massive. The Government have arrogantly assumed that they have a monopoly of wisdom on what that leave vote meant and hold Parliament in contempt in pursuit of it. Is it not the reality that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, something like a confirmatory public vote would be entirely logically coherent and that it is bizarre that the Prime Minister, despite not having a mandate or a majority, seems so pig-headed in not actually reaching out to the House of Commons to pursue that sort of consensus-building approach?

Keir Starmer: I have, not least because my hon. Friend raised it with me last week. The difficulty is that the EU argues that, once the withdrawal agreement and political declaration are agreed, we cannot, through domestic legislation, change the terms of those documents. Therefore, whatever amendment is put down to the legislation, it could not alter the terms of the political declaration. So it is not accurate to say that all of this could be swept up with the implementation Bill because the words in the document that we are seeking to implement have to be the ones that the House is happy with and thus has agreed before we get to that stage. Some things could be dealt with in the implementation  Bill—I do not quarrel with that—but the EU will not countenance this House changing the terms of the EU’s agreement through amendments to the Bill. That was one of the concerns the Government rightly put in relation to the meaningful vote. When we were saying that there should be amendments to the meaningful vote, the Government’s position was that we cannot really have amendments because this House cannot amend the substance of the document.

Oliver Letwin: Amendment (a) has already been much discussed in the course of this debate, and I do not want to detain the House long.  First, though, I wish to say what it is trying to do and what it is not trying to do. It is not some kind of massive constitutional revolution, although I know that some of my hon. Friends and others have suggested that it is. The truth is that, as you said yourself earlier in the debate, Mr Speaker, the House has since its inception owned its Standing Orders. In fact, under the principle of comity—one of the most fundamental principles of our constitution—the courts have never sought to intervene in the proceedings of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and have recognised that the House in each case controls its own proceedings.
As a matter of fact, the idea that it is an ancient constitutional principle that the Government should control the Order Paper is slightly anhistorical, if that is the right word, because the practice started in 1906, so it is not, as far as I am aware, part of our ancient constitution. For about 400 or 500 years, things that either were the House of Commons or were very much like it controlled their own Order Papers. That changed at the beginning of the 20th century, but what did not change was the fundamental point that the way that Standing Orders are decided is by a majority vote in the House of Commons, and therefore they can be adjusted by such a vote and, if so adjusted, the adjusted version is what applies.
Every time there is a private Member’s Bill Friday, astonishingly, the Government do something that we are apparently now entreated to regard as utterly revolutionary—they hand over to private Members the opportunity to put forward Bills. According to this soi-disant constitutional theory that has been invented, that must be a kind of revolution, because it is not the Government putting forward a Bill, but in fact we have been doing it perfectly happily for years. So there is no revolutionary intent behind the amendment at all.
The second point I wish to make is about what the amendment does do. It does exactly what has been described in the debate; namely, it provides an opportunity, simply and nothing more, for the House of Commons to begin—I stress, to begin—the process of working its way towards identifying a way forward that can command a majority in this House.
I wish to reflect for a second on my own personal history in this matter. I find sometimes from the communications, not always utterly polite, that I receive from various quarters on my iPhone, that it is supposed that I have from the beginning attempted to destroy the Government’s efforts to carry out an orderly Brexit. That is obviously a more amusing story than the real one, but the real one is very sad and ordinary. I started as an entirely loyal member of the Conservative party. I had never voted against the Conservative Whip in my entire parliamentary career—not once. What is more, although I voted remain in the referendum, I was absolutely determined that we should continue our proceedings by ensuring that we fulfilled the mandate of the British people and left the European Union.
For a long while, although I personally thought from the very beginning that the Prime Minister was unwise to set out her red lines, I swallowed my concerns about them and utterly supported her in her endeavour to get her version of leave across the line. Indeed, on frequent occasions, as several of my right hon. and hon. Friends will recall, I acted as a kind of broker to try to bring together my European Research Group colleagues with  other colleagues who now sit in various parts of the House, to produce results—some of which are now encoded, as a matter of fact, in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. It was my endeavour to make this a process that enabled the Prime Minister to get to the end of the road successfully.
I have fulfilled that endeavour by trying to vote with the Prime Minister on every occasion on which she has brought a section 13 motion to the House. I apologise to Opposition Members for saying that I will do that again if the Prime Minister brings forward a meaningful vote 3, or 4, or infinity. I will go on voting for the Prime Minister’s deal, because I happen to think that it is perfectly okay. I am very conscious that many Members do not agree with me.
The problem we have faced—all 650 of us can agree on this—is that we have not been able to get a majority for the Prime Minister’s deal. That is the fact, and it is a problem, because if there is no majority for that deal and we want to leave the EU, we are forced down only one of two possible tracks, one of which is to find an alternative and the other of which is to have no deal. It was at the point a few months back when I surmised that there was a real possibility that the Prime Minister, I think by mistake rather than on purpose, was going to end up taking us out without a deal and without having adequately prepared for that, that I became so concerned that I started to work on a cross-party basis with many colleagues on both sides of the House to try to find a solution. This modest attempt to provide the House with an opportunity to vote in the majority in favour of an alternative way forward is simply part of that process.

Stephen Doughty: I will support the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment tonight, and I am happy to have put my name to it. What he said about not rushing through this all in one day is a very important point. We need time. There are reasonable concerns that people do not want suddenly to be deciding on the future relationship of the country, potentially for the next 40 years, in a couple of hours in here. I was pleased to hear what he said about this being the start of a process. Does he agree that in getting together and setting that business of the House motion, we must we ensure that it is a fair, balanced process that enjoys the confidence of Members in all parts of the House—all parties and all persuasions—and that it is not seen as loaded in one direction or the other, or indeed in favour of the Government’s policy?

Oliver Letwin: I was with the hon. Lady nearly to the end, but not quite to the end. I am conscious that although the point that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) made a minute or two ago is right—we should allow ourselves a couple of days to do what should have been done over a couple of years—we are also under very considerable time pressure. There is a reality in the situation, which is that on 11 April, we will hit the buffers. Therefore, we should not spend too much time debating the process. We should, if possible, move forward on the basis that there is sufficient consensus about the  process not to have to debate it, and get on with the substance. To that end, it would be sensible if we began this process by allowing Members who wish to put forward alternatives to do so. There are groups of people who support, for example, a people’s vote as a confirmatory process or otherwise, Norway plus, or the propositions hitherto put forward by the Opposition. We need to let those Members formulate their propositions in their own terms, in the ordinary way.
You have a long record, Mr Speaker—previous Speakers have also had a long record—of finding a way of selecting for debate amendments that carry sufficient weight in terms of numbers, cross-party support and so on. That is a perfectly proper process to use. It does not involve any one of us tilting the playing field, and it enables us to proceed without too much further debate about process.

Stephen Gethins: But I am not sure that there are many who will disagree with me when I say that it is not working very well, is it? How is that attempt to avoid a Tory civil war going? Does the Minister want to intervene now? No, I did not think so, because there is a full-blown civil war in his party. And this is a Tory party determined to take the rest of us down as well, but today’s amendments give us the chance—for the moment—to stave off that opportunity that the Tories are trying to give us.
The Prime Minister continues to appeal to the hardliners in her own party, rather than to face up to the reality of minority government, but this is a lost cause. The Brexiteers who campaigned without any sort of plan are the ones who got us into this mess. And, frankly, the message to the Prime Minister must be that they are unlikely to get us out of it. Now, it is not for me to judge Conservative party management—the voters will have their opportunity to do that in due course—but what strikes me is just how in thrall this Conservative Prime Minister is to the extremists in her own party. With that, I want to praise some Conservative Members, because there are Members who I disagree with and who disagree with me, but who have stuck their necks out, and look at the way they have been treated.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is in his place, and I disagree over plenty, including Brexit; he wants us to leave the European Union and I do not. Some Members have tried to make positive proposals, although we do not always agree on them. But even when one of those proposals is accepted by the Government—as was the case with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa)—we are now in a situation whereby the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford finds himself deselected and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire finds himself sacked, yet all along—I disagree with them over this—they have backed the Prime Minister’s deal. What does that tell us about trying to find some kind of consensus or trying to reach across? This is a Government who are in thrall to the very extremes, and this House cannot put up with that for any longer. Just look at the invitation list of those who were treated to lunch at Chequers: the very people voting against the Prime Minister. This tells us everything about a Prime Minister who has lost control of her own party and who has dragged us into this folly.

Stephen Gethins: The hon. Lady makes a very powerful point about the way that millions protested peacefully on Saturday. I am delighted that our First Minister joined them, as did the leader of the Liberal Democrats, colleagues in the Labour party and even some Conservative colleagues. They were right to have done so.
The Prime Minister is effectively out of power, and we need to move on. Her deal has been rejected twice, overwhelmingly, which means that it becomes more and more pointless to debate it with every passing hour. The Opposition spokesperson was right to point that out. The House of Commons must seize control of this process tonight so that we can hold those indicative votes and start—start—to find a way out of this mess. We know from the UK Government’s own warnings that her deal is not in the best interests of anybody in the UK, and we know that no deal is not in anybody’s best interests either. This Parliament has come together and comprehensively rejected both her deal and no deal. Having wasted almost three years, the Government have run out of options and run out of ideas, and we need to step up.
Where we are today is not a farce: it is a tragedy, and a tragedy that is taking us all down with it. I assure colleagues that, as somebody who fundamentally wants Scotland to be an independent state, it really gives me no pleasure when I speak to colleagues overseas and find that the UK’s international reputation is broken. That hurts us all. When I was working in the European institutions, I saw that overall in the EU, the UK could be a real force for good. Although I did not always agree with everything that it did, I acknowledge many of the positive contributions made by UK citizens to the EU project. It is right that we all acknowledge that.
What was more striking, however, was the way in which the UK and Ireland worked as the closest possible allies and partners in the European Union. For the first time in that troubled history, there was truly a working as a partnership of equals alongside other European states. Now—again, this gives me no pleasure, nor, I suspect, the Irish either—the boot that has historically been on the foot of the UK is now on the other foot. As Robert Cooper wrote in the Financial Times:
“The smallest insiders (Dublin in the case of Brexit) matter more than the biggest outsider (us).”
That tells us everything about solidarity in the workings of the European Union. Yet even on this, the Irish do not crow but have been honest brokers. The best friends any of us can have are our most critical friends—the ones who tell us the truth when we want to see it the least. I have heard, when these matters of truth have come out, Brexiteers getting enraged and annoyed at the truth that people dare speak from Dublin.
Let me remind all Members that Ireland is independent and is not coming back—and it is not difficult to see why. Independent states thrive in the European Union. That is a means of strengthening democracy and sovereignty. The EU is a partnership of equals in a way that the UK simply is not. I want to see Scotland as a full and independent member state of the EU. That would be healthier in our relationship as a modern outward-looking nation in the same way that it has been healthy for the Anglo-Irish relationship.
Here in the UK, people are seeing through this mess. At the weekend, as we have heard, hundreds of thousands of people from the length and breadth of the UK marched for our collective future. Since then, at the last look, the revocation of article 50 petition has been signed by 5.5 million people, including 17% of the electorate in my own constituency—and that is not even the highest figure in Scotland. Millions of people can see what this Government cannot. What this Government clearly cannot see, but these people can, is that when you are careering towards the cliffs you slam on the brakes—that is what they are there for. Let us not forget that Parliament has that power, as was recognised by the courts, because the UK Parliament, throughout this, has retained, and always will retain in these circumstances, sovereignty in a way that the Scottish Parliament does not. Spot the difference, everybody: the UK Parliament, as a member of the EU, retains sovereignty; the Scottish Parliament, as this process has shown us, does not. This may provide a mechanism to stop doing untold damage to those we all represent.

Nicholas Soames: I will not, if I may, because many others want to speak. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
All of us know that many of our constituents are understandably extremely angry that Brexit has so distracted the Government from the serious issues we face—the NHS, education, crime, the reform of social care, housing, the environment and climate change, and all the other great issues that have inevitably had to be neglected as Brexit has gradually sucked the life blood out of the Government. As you very well know, Mr Speaker, the public believe that we have collectively let them down badly, and this is leading inevitably and very seriously to the fraying of the bonds between Parliament and the nation. The national interest clearly dictates that we have to get this done and that we must get on with the vital work of establishing our future relationships with our most important economic partners and allies.
At the beginning of the business of the House every day, the Speaker’s Chaplain reads the prayer that enjoins Members most especially to
“never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind”.
All of us need to pay a little more attention to those wise, profound and humane words, which have guided and succoured this House through thick and thin down the years and in worse days than these. It is now time that Parliament did its duty by the country, for the national interest and for national unity, and regardless of party or inclination, to bring these matters to a belated conclusion.

Margaret Beckett: It is, as ever, a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), although I should perhaps place on record that I totally disagree with what he and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) said on one issue, because I feel that the only way we will resolve this situation peacefully and in a way that brings people together is by going back to the people for confirmation of whatever decision this House makes. Otherwise, I fear we will be seen as engaging in an establishment stitch-up, thinking of something that we will then foist on the people. It is essential to seek their view.
I am very conscious that today’s is a crowded agenda. Amendment (f), standing in my name and those of others on both sides of the House, is so straightforward that it practically speaks for itself, so I intend to be brief. I am also mindful of how many others want to speak.
I recognise, of course, that the House has voted on more than one occasion against the UK leaving the EU without a deal; indeed, the Prime Minister has acknowledged that. I am also well aware that there are nevertheless Members who feel that, whatever the evidence to the contrary, leaving with no deal would not cause us major problems, and that there even some who actively support our leaving without a deal or at least regard it as a desirable outcome. Surely, however, few if any believe it would be desirable that the UK should not make such a decision but drift or fall into it by inadvertence—almost by accident. That would be the very definition of irresponsibility.
We still have a very tight timetable, which presently encompasses, in addition, a potential recess period.  As I said, my amendment is extremely simple and  straightforward. It seeks to ensure that the UK can leave the EU without a deal only with the explicit consent of the House of Commons.

Dominic Grieve: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). I can tell her now that I shall be voting for her amendment if it is put to the vote at the end of the evening, as I hope it will be. I shall return to that in a moment.
I am the second signatory to amendment (a), and I want briefly to outline my thoughts on its necessity and why it may help the House. I have obviously approached this in a slightly different way from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). As the House will be perfectly well aware, I continue to believe that Brexit is a historic mistake of very great  proportions, and I am afraid that at no time since the referendum took place have I felt, despite efforts on my part to do so, that we are moving towards a position where I could ever take the view that the future outside the EU was going to better than remaining in it.
But I certainly voted to trigger article 50. I did it in deference to the result of the referendum and in the full knowledge that we could not even start negotiations unless we did so. Although I have occasionally been characterised as trying to obstruct Brexit, the truth is that, throughout 2017 and 2018, most of the work I did was to try to improve the process because of the concerns I had that it was being shortcut, thereby making mistaken outcomes all the more likely. I think there were only two occasions when I voted on substantive motions about alternatives, but that was because I was rather worried about the extent to which the Government seemed to be self-imposing red lines, and on neither occasion did it come anywhere close to success. I accepted that, and I accepted also that I should reserve my position on what the Government were negotiating and indicated that on a number of occasions in debates.
Where I disagree or differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset is that, when I finally came to look at the Government’s deal as negotiated in December, I thought it was a deal that was going to condemn us to a third-rate future. That is the basis on which I have been unwilling to support it. In saying that, I am entirely mindful of the fact that it has been negotiated in good faith by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I believe that every Member on the Front Bench has exercised as much diligence as possible to get the best possible outcome. Of course, that raises another question. If the outcome secured in December was so unsatisfactory that it was defeated by 220 votes in this House, and defeated because the examination of it from differing directions by Members on both sides of the House found it wanting, that calls into question whether in fact a fundamental error has been made and the entire process has inherent flaws.
A tendency that has crept in ever since the referendum result has been to close down debate on the basis that it is not proper to pursue it, because the referendum result must act as a diktat that prevents such debate from taking place. I have been long enough in this House to have experienced that sort of argument before, sometimes when Governments get very large majorities in general elections. I even remember on one occasion a Member of this House arguing that, because the then Labour Government had such a big majority, there was no real need any more to have the Second Reading debate of Bills, and the matter should be just put through on the nod and we should move on to the detail.
The one thing I am absolutely persuaded about is that we cannot have a working democracy where we close down debates. Democracy is all about the permanent shifting of tectonic plates. It goes on every second of every day, all the time. Just because somebody is defeated on one matter, it does not mean that they have to give up. They can keep going at it—and heaven knows, we have watched Members do just that in this House. In the same way, to argue that the referendum result imposes a permanency that cannot be challenged is, in my judgment, entirely wrong. When I look at the mess into  which we have got ourselves, it appears to be at least in part the consequence of pushing that argument and thereby preventing the democratic process from working.
We get criticism that this House is not functioning properly or that democracy is not working. I think that this House has an exceptional capacity to reach sensible outcomes, but, I have to say to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, it has been consistently prevented from doing its ordinary job by the straitjacket that has been imposed on the extent of what is acceptable to debate.

James Cartlidge: It is novel for me not to have a time limit, so I am used to those strictures.
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chairman of the Brexit Committee. He made the clear point that we have shown what we are against, but at some point, we as a House will have to show what we are in favour of. Speaking personally, I still think that the best deal on the table is the Prime Minister’s deal. It respects the referendum result, which is critical, and it deals with the complex problem of how on earth a country that has such integrated supply chains, with thousands of lorries coming through Dover, can maintain frictionless trade as far as possible, yet take back sovereignty in the key areas of the single market and the customs union. It is very difficult, but that circle has been squared in the Prime Minister’s proposal and I would like to vote for it again. However, I have to accept that it may not come back and that so far, it has been defeated very heavily indeed.
Although procedure is important—the amendments before us are about how Parliament brings forward the next stage of the debate—I do not want to focus on it.  I believe that we must focus on first principles—the underlying principles of how we will deliver on the referendum result.
The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said that we should consider a second referendum, a single market plus customs union and so on. However, there is one fundamental problem with all those proposals, which my constituents who voted to leave would raise. It is an issue that we all have to grapple with—free movement. I want to focus on two principles: free movement and free trade. Free movement is not an easy one, because it forces us to discuss immigration, to which we have so far failed to give anything like enough attention.
I feel strongly on the subject. In justifying a second referendum, it has been said that the facts have changed since the 2016 referendum and that therefore there should be another vote. We must consider what has changed, and whether, if it had been known in the referendum campaign of 2016, it would have led to a different result. I suggest that the single fact, if it had been known in advance, that would have had the most impact—whether we like it or not—is that Brexit has directly led to an unprecedented increase in immigration into this country from outside the EU.

Lisa Nandy: I came to this debate as much to listen as to contribute, and I am very glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who, in a very rare way in these debates over the past few years, has set out a way in which we might move forward. That may not be comfortable for her and these may not all be her preferred options, but it shows a willingness to listen, to compromise and to move, which has been pretty absent, if we are honest, from this debate so far.
The attitudes out there in the country are hardening. Constituents of mine who told me three years ago that they voted leave and that they were happy to leave on whatever terms Parliament deemed necessary, as long as we respected the result, are now telling me daily that they want to cut all ties and leave with no deal at all. Constituents who voted to remain and who said that we had had the debate, that the other side had won fair and square and that we just had to get on with it are now telling me that they want to halt the process altogether and remain in the EU. Having spent a lot of time with colleagues trying to find a way through this in here and behind the scenes over the past few weeks, I feel that exactly the same thing is happening in Parliament. If we do not start to move, they will not start to move and there is absolutely no prospect of repairing this country.
That is why I very much welcome what the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has done with the amendment, particularly the way in which he presented it. He is not seeking to control the outcome of this process. He is not seeking to do what many of his colleagues on each extreme of this debate have done for several years, which is to knock out any preferred option that is not theirs and undermine any of us who are trying to find a solution by questioning our good faith, intentions and motives.
As somebody who represents a constituency where two thirds of people voted to leave—they did so largely in full knowledge of what they were doing and still feel strongly about it—but where a third of people also voted to remain and have every bit as much of a stake in the future of this country as the rest, I have to say that that bad faith is operating on both sides of this debate. Those threats and the abuse are coming from both sides. I and many hon. Members face them daily, and to seek to pretend, as some Members just did in this debate, that it comes only from one side is quite simply not true. It is insulting and it will not stick.
I am very dismayed today about the Government’s position. I do not think that Ministers understand how little trust there is left. As we stand here in this Chamber, right now—according to lobby journalists who are briefing things out over social media—the Government are sitting in closed rooms trying to persuade Members on their own side to vote down this amendment in favour of  guarantees. We have been here before. Time and again, they come to the Dispatch Box and they tell us they are serious. They tell us they are listening and that the House must make a decision, and then, when we get up and speak with one voice about what we want, they say, “Okay, we will go away and think about it.” They make some promises and pick off Members on their own side, and then, lo and behold, where are those promises when they most count? They are nowhere to be seen.
Given the mess that has been created in this country, what is wrong, honestly, with giving Parliament the right to consider the options that we want to put forward? We speak for very different communities in this country. When the Government seek to deny us a voice, they are not denying me a voice—who cares whether I have a voice?—they are denying the 75,000 people I represent in Wigan a voice and all the other hon. Members besides.
I say to both Front-Bench teams that if we are to consider the options in good faith, given the very different needs and priorities of constituencies, a free vote has to be offered on those options. I understand the discomfort. I have served in the shadow Cabinet. It is not an easy thing to do, but when we have this strength of feeling and these very divergent views and experiences across the country, all those have to be heard if we are going to find a way through this.
I say to Ministers, too, that almost entirely absent now is not just the trust, but the good will. Last week, I could not believe what I was seeing when the Prime Minister took to the steps of Downing Street and tried to pit the people against Parliament. The public follow our lead. When we stand in here using language such as “betrayal” and “traitors”, is it any surprise that we step outside and find that same language levelled back at us? If she wants to restore good will, the first thing that she must do is apologise to Members of this House, who are all, in our very different ways and positions, trying to find a way through this in good faith. She must rule out no deal.
We will not believe that the Prime Minister is serious about the interests of the country if she is not—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is asking me why. Last week, I had a constituent on the phone whose son was in line for a clinical trial in the European Union that could save his life. They do not know now whether he will get it. This is a child who has no certainty about what is going to happen next. I have a constituent who is on dialysis, who rang me to say that she has been told to expect some disruption in the event of no deal. When I went to a Minister to ask what the advice was, he said, “We are doing our best, but we cannot make any guarantees.” My sister is diabetic and has not slept for months because she does not know whether she will be able to access insulin. People can accuse me of scaremongering all they like, but the Government’s technical notice cannot tell us what will happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit. What sort of Government cannot guarantee access to medicines in just a week’s time?

Martin Docherty: I was taken by the speech of the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who talked about the diminished place of the United Kingdom after Brexit and during the Brexit process. When Opposition Members mention that, Conservative Members often say we are talking rubbish, but I think the right hon. Gentleman’s belief has a degree of support from his Government. Today we saw the naval process and the EU military complex and engagement process start to unravel, with the naval piracy taskforce moving from the United Kingdom to Cadiz, so I think the right hon. Gentleman was right about that diminished role.
Earlier today, during defence questions, Ministers could not recognise the element of diminution in defence and security, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it exists. The Secretary of State for Defence rightly has a lot to say about Russia and China, but seems to have very little to say about our future defence and security engagement with our closest ally, with which we will have a land border: the European Union.
Last week, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who has just left the Chamber, gave a clear analysis of the process so far. I hope he will forgive   me for saying that only one slight element was missing from it: history. Another Member on the other side of the House—I believe it was the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who has also left the Chamber—seemed to exclude history in a more robust fashion, expressing utter disgust at the way in which the Government had brought them to this position.
I think both Members would probably agree, as would many other Members, that that is nothing new in this place. The civil war at the heart of the Conservative party is certainly nothing new, especially when it comes to the last 40 years of membership of the European Economic Community, the European Community or the European Union. In many ways, the discourse at the heart of the Conservative and Unionist party is fundamentally exposed by what it has done in walking through the doors with the Democratic Unionist party. Now of course the DUP are not here to defend themselves, but I think we would all agree that they have played a blinder when it comes to Brexit, because the history of the Conservative party with the ancestors of the DUP more or less has made the Prime Minister a modern-day Pitt the Younger, and we all know what happened in 1800 with Pitt the Younger and the utter disgrace that unfolded in Unionist history. So if the Conservative and Unionist party wishes to pin its hopes on doing deals with the DUP it should learn a lesson from its own political history. It is one it has clearly forgotten; it has no collective or institutional memory of its own history, and it is extraordinary to see it unfold before it.
The two main parties, both the Government and the official Opposition, had a commitment in their manifestos in 2017 to deliver Brexit, and the Prime Minister keeps coming back to that, but what was not in the Prime Minister’s party’s manifesto was giving a £1 billion bung to the DUP. That was hidden; there was nothing about that. No one wanted to talk about it, but that is where they are.
There is another issue that has gone about the nation. As you know, Mr Speaker, when I first stood in this House I made it clear that I was neither a Unionist nor a Home Ruler and I think that is self-explanatory, but I do have regard for both the Unionist Members and the Home Rulers in this Parliament and their position. So when it comes to a people’s vote, for example, I am utterly delighted to support it. My party has been supportive of it, and the First Minister was at the march as well as our leader here in the parliamentary group in Westminster. I hope that when push comes to shove in respect of the mandate that already exists in Scotland in its own Parliament where there is a majority that a section 30 order—of the Scotland Act 1998—is requested, those on all sides recognise any hypocrisy if they would not support a second referendum on Scotland’s constitutional position, whether they agree with that change or not.
Mention has also been made in this debate about the constitution. What constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? There is no constitution of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have heard about precedent; that precedent comes from the Parliament of England pre-1707. Before 1707 I would be a shire commissioner in the Parliament of Scotland sitting in the ancient Parliament that sits there, probably the oldest parliamentary building in these islands, and a member of the three estates. But I am not;  I am here in this place. So although I support the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who is not in his place, I am hopeful that if there is a second referendum all those calling for it will be supportive of the mandate in the Scottish Parliament, and not just from my own party as there is a wider majority in the Scottish Parliament, for calling if we are dragged against our will out of the EU for a referendum on us being again an independent sovereign nation state within the family of European nations.

Anna Turley: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and I want to put on the record how impressed I have been with the calibre and quality of the speeches this afternoon and evening. It has been quite overwhelming and they have done this place some credit. At a time when the House is being vilified—even being disrespected and undermined by the Prime Minister—I have heard Members speak with passion and commitment. There have been different views and perspectives, but everyone has tried to navigate their way through things and to do what is best for their constituents and the country.
I rise to support amendments (d), (f) and, in particular, (a). Finally, Parliament is taking control of the process; the Government should have set that in train two years ago. We are finally about to decide what Brexit actually is. The fundamental dilemma of the 2016 referendum was that it allowed everybody to project all their fears, anger, hopes and fantasies on to a simply binary question, and the result has been interpreted by many different people to mean many different things. As a consequence —we will have to get used to this—whatever option the House supports will be met with cries of, “Betrayal” from those who do not get the version of Brexit that was in their mind when they voted, or even the version that they have developed over the past two and a half years.
The narrative of betrayal, which the Prime Minister stoked up last week, is toxic and needs to be confronted with honesty and courage. Whatever version of Brexit comes out the other side of the parliamentary mangle, MPs need to acknowledge that people will be disappointed, upset and even angered. Whatever we do risks losing votes, and possibly even seats, for all parties. That is why we need to be brave and vote in the country’s best interests.
Those who bandy around the word “betrayal” must be honest that the betrayal of the British people has already happened. The betrayal was to ask people to make a vague and over-simplistic decision, with insufficient information that was not honest about the real choices facing our country or the complexity of our economic integration with the European Union. The betrayal was rooted in the lies and fantasy promises that were told without any intention of being kept—like those on the side of the bus. The betrayal was the exploitation for personal and political ends of the justifiable and understandable grievances of left-behind areas and working-class communities such as mine. The betrayal was the legitimatisation of prejudice, hatred and division that we saw during that debate and have seen since. The betrayal was not to be honest that major constitutional changes should not be put forward to the public unless the work had been done to prepare for them. All that comes even before we have a proper inquiry into the potential law breaking.

Anna Turley: I concur completely. I was building up to a crescendo, but I agree that being honest and having a conversation with the people about the reality of Brexit is the way forward. This place owes the public an apology for the referendum—not just David Cameron, but all of us—but instead of apologising the betrayal has continued. Rather than being honest with the public, confronting the mistakes and admitting that the referendum was flawed, we have sought to continue it rather than face up to our historic error. The public are wiser than many in this place give them credit for. They can see that the process over the past two and a half years has been an absolute shambles. They can see that Brexit is nothing like what was promised to them. We should all have the humility to say we know much more now than we did then.
Why is the Prime Minister continuing to drive people to a destination that is not where they were told they were going? We do not even know whether many of them still want to go. She continues to talk about the will of the people, but she ignores not just the 48% but those who did not vote because they did not feel strongly enough to want to change the situation. Some 29 million people either voted to remain or did not feel they wanted to change things. None of them asked to get where we are.
No wonder the public call it betrayal when they are not getting the things they were promised, or when responsible politicians step up to try to stop this carnage. This is the ultimate Brexit paradox. The further we are from Europe and the more abrupt our break, the worse it is for our economy, particularly for areas like mine that voted most strongly to leave. Yet the closer we remain to the EU, with Norway-plus or a soft Brexit option, the more we concede British sovereignty and dilute the so-called will of the people, which is now hardening among many leavers for a no deal.
No one will be getting what they were promised and I believe it is a deceit to vote for Brexit in name only in the hope that people will not notice or to try to get them off our backs. All we would be doing is continuing to reinforce the lie to the public and failing to be honest with them about the reality of our situation. Worse, I hear the Prime Minister patronising them and telling them there is nothing that can be done to prevent it because this is what they wanted two and a half years ago. Denying them the right to change their mind or to have their say on the outcome now that the evidence is clearer is a real betrayal, both of them and of future generations.
Record numbers have marched and signed petitions in the past few days. They, too, are the people, and they, too, deserve to have their voice heard. A new referendum or a vote to ratify a deal that comes through our range of options must be put to the people in the cold light of day. We must be brave enough to ignore the calls of betrayal and do the right thing, and not continue the deceit that we will be able to please everyone with our  Brexit outcome. We must do what is in the best interest of our constituents’ jobs and livelihoods and in the national interest of our country. Parliament needs to come clean that we have made a catastrophic mess. We must give the public the chance to help us clean it up.

Tommy Sheppard: In opening this debate, the deputy Prime Minister cautioned against voting for amendment (a) because he said that it would alter the relationship between the Executive and the Parliament. That is exactly why we need to vote for amendment (a). We must alter that relationship because we are now in a situation whereby the level of dysfunction and inertia in our political system is without parallel. We are in the midst of a political crisis that is mirrored only by our inability to do anything about it through the normal processes of government, so we must now take back control of the agenda.
We are in a bizarre situation whereby the Government have brought their proposals twice to this Parliament, and twice they have been roundly rejected. Now, not  only do the Government say that they will not bring their proposals back for a third time—they are taking their ball home with them, it seems—but they say that they refuse to change their mind and vary those proposals so that there might be a route to a majority. In those circumstances, there is no option left but for people other than those in the Government to take control of the situation.
Make no mistake, if amendment (a) is passed, it will most definitely be an indictment and a censure of this Government and the way in which they have conducted themselves over the last two and a half years. What we need to know from the Government is whether they are prepared to try to win back our trust—whether they will enter into this process with good faith in the attempt to see whether there is a majority in this House that they can be part of, or whether they just want us to exhaust ourselves running around in circles, so that they can come along two weeks later and bring plan A back again to be defeated.
As others have remarked, we should have been engaged in this process two and a half years ago, rather than leaving it to this last moment, but the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) put his finger on the button when he said that the problem is that, from the word go, the result of the 2016 referendum was hijacked by the winning side and used to close down any debate about how the mandate should be interpreted or what it actually meant. Therefore, for the past two years, there has been a dialogue that has involved only the Government, the ERG and the Democratic Unionist party. Thankfully, we are not yet in a situation whereby that political axis commands a majority either in this House or in the country. I appeal to the Government for the umpteenth time to reach out beyond their own narrow political confines and see whether it is possible to build a political consensus in this country that can put our fractured politics back together.
Time and again, we have heard the mantra of 17.4 million, and we really need to confront this point. In a democratic society, people do not just get one vote; they get a series of votes. In a democratic society, each vote qualifies and updates the ones that came before. What we need to know is what the views of the people are now, not what they were three years ago. I firmly believe that, although 17.4 million people voted for us to leave the European Union, they did not vote to endorse the prospectus that the Government have brought to this House, and they did not vote for the Government’s harsh interpretation of that decision. For example, I do not think that 17.4 million people voted to deny themselves and their children the ability to move freely around the European Union. I just do not believe it; I think that was part of the hijack.
Most importantly, however, it is clear to anyone who wants to see that many of those people have changed their minds. In a democratic society, people have the right to do that, so we need to test the decision again, and that means we will have to put this matter back to the people. We do not need a short break in this process—a short extension—to tweak what is already there; we need a fundamental rethink. We need to go back to the drawing board. We need to scrap the phoney red lines that were imposed by this Government and see  if it is possible to come up with a new proposal. To do that, and to give time for that to put before the people, we will need a serious extension to this process.
Thankfully, the European Union—President Tusk and others—has indicated that it would be happy to look at a much longer extension and at going back to negotiations if the Government change their red lines: their restrictive insistence on what the agreement had to do. So that option is there, but if there are complications in getting that level of extension, the answer is quite simple, and the power lies with us. All we need to do is to revoke article 50—not as means of getting closure on the whole process but to take back control of it and give ourselves whatever time we need to formulate proposals and to democratically put them before the people.
Of course, we will go beyond 22 May and will therefore get into having the opportunity to elect representatives to represent us in the European Union, of which we are still part. What is wrong with that? How can it be that a bunch of people elected in a democratic election are so scared of having one in two months’ time? Let us put this back to the people in an election. That will give us the opportunity to begin to redefine the narrative in this country—to try to explain to people that we gain most by common endeavour. We need to put hope in front of hate and to put hope back where there is currently despair. We can take a positive message to the people in those elections. My party stands ready to do that, and I do not see why others are not ready to contest them, too.
When we get the opportunity to run these elections in Scotland, you can bet, for sure, that we will also be taking the opportunity to explain to the people of Scotland that this process could have been avoided for them and they did not need to go through this if they had had the confidence to take the power for themselves, take back control and become a normal independent country like the others in this world.

Margaret Beckett: I will not detain the Secretary of State. If what I have suggested is acceptable, why does not he just accept the amendment?

Question accordingly agreed to.
The Speaker put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).
Amendment proposed: (f), at end, add
“and orders that, in the event that the UK comes within seven calendar days of leaving the European Union without a deal, the Government must make arrangements within two sitting days, or if this House has been adjourned for more than four days to arrange for the House to be recalled under Standing Order No. 13 (Earlier meeting of the House in certain circumstances) for this purpose, for a Minister of the Crown to move a motion on whether this House approves the UK leaving the EU without a deal and on whether the UK Government should be required to request an extension of the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union in order to avoid a no-deal Brexit and to give time for Parliament to determine a different approach.”.—(Margaret Beckett.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question, as amended, put.
The House proceeded to a Division.

John Bercow: I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time, and he is not disorderly, but there is something to be said for observing the precepts of “Erskine May” in terms of moderation and good humour in parliamentary debate, and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is always unfailingly courteous in his  dealings with others. I think that the question was largely rhetorical, but in so far as the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) is seeking a response, what I would say in all seriousness is that the effect of—[Interruption.] Order. I do not require any help from the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who would not have the foggiest idea where to start. He was once a Whip; he wasn’t a very good Whip. It would be better if he could keep quiet. That is the reality of the matter. [Interruption.] No, it is not outrageous at all. [Interruption.] Members can shout as much as they like, iut will not make any difference. The right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham is perfectly capable of looking after himself. If he wants to chunter noisily from a sedentary position, he has to expect that there will be a response. I say to the hon. Member for Monmouth that these matters will be aired further in debate on Wednesday, and if he wants to subject the right hon. Member for West Dorset to appropriate scrutiny, the opportunity is there for him to do so.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Policing: Somerset

Ian Liddell-Grainger: For many reasons, I am pleased to have secured this debate, even though some of what I have to say may be distressing to hear because crime, unfortunately, knows no boundaries.
It will come as no surprise that policing in Somerset is a matter of enormous concern to my constituents and to hundreds of thousands of others across the county. To an outsider, Somerset conjures up the image of a peaceful backwater, full of cider orchards and friendly folk with old-fashioned values. Unfortunately, as in so many other parts of our nation, life is no longer like that. Rather alarmingly, the National Crime Agency says that there are 90 organised crime groups operating in the Avon and Somerset area. It is no longer a few light-fingered thieves we have to worry about; it is big-time crooks. Organised crime in the United Kingdom costs £37 billion every year—that is almost as much as the Brexit divorce bill to Brussels. Organised crime causes more deaths than terrorism, wars and natural disasters put together, and there are 90 organised crime groups in my county alone. Frankly, it does not bear thinking about.
The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has just named Bristol the cocaine capital of Europe. That is not an accolade that any of us locally are proud of. The city has shot up the international cocaine leader board. Twelve months ago, Bristol was No. 5 in the charts; now it is No. 1. There is widespread drug misuse in so many corners of Somerset, which the police confess is way beyond their capacity to handle, let alone solve. Users frequently get off with a caution if they are caught at all. Dealers have to be major players to warrant anything approaching a crackdown. The force simply does not have the manpower to do anything other than cherry-pick at a huge, disastrous and growing problem.
Just a fortnight ago, the Avon and Somerset chief constable admitted that his force was “losing the war” against drugs. That is a very scary public statement to make. I have enormous respect for the foot soldiers of our overworked police force. I have watched them do their jobs in difficult circumstances. I have joined them in civvies on patrol and see them risk life and limb in action. The men and women in the ranks perform miracles, and they defy the odds, but I fear the odds are stacked against them. They are not always well led, and they suffer from the slings and arrows of erratic decision making by the office of the police and crime commissioner.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service will probably know that I have had several bitter spats with the Avon and Somerset police and crime commissioner, Mrs Sue Mountstevens, who has the uncanny knack of opening her mouth and inserting both feet into it—a remarkable achievement. On her first day on the job, she fired the chief constable. A few months later, she fired his successor—the very candidate she had hand-picked as a replacement. The present chief constable must consider himself lucky to have survived a couple of years.
Nobody can relax when the commissioner starts talking. Last week, she offered the benefit of her wisdom on the subject of drug smuggling—“Don’t risk Dover,” she told her audience, “because you might easily get caught.” She added that if anybody was smuggling drugs, her personal recommendation was somewhere safer, like Lyme Regis in Dorset. I am sure that Members representing Dorset are pleased.
The local town exploded with justifiable anger. They call Lyme Regis the pearl of the Jurassic coast, which it is, but Mrs Mountstevens has now renamed it Dope-on-sea. Bang go her chances of getting a glittering career with the Lyme Regis tourist board. Mrs Mountstevens used to run the famous Mountstevens family bakery. I suspect that it will not come as a great surprise to the Minister that the bakery went bust when she was running it. Last week, after the Lyme Regis booboo, she baked an incredible humble pie and was forced to eat the lot.
Frankly, anyone would find it a bit of a challenge trying to run an effective police force with Sue Mountstevens permanently peering over their shoulder, especially when the arithmetic of crime is rising against her. Everything seems to be going up. Knife crime is up 52% in a single year. That amounts to 634 additional crimes in Avon and Somerset in which knives were used. The police response was to organise Operation Spectre, a campaign aimed at educating young people, targeting hotspots and putting out knife surrender bins. That may sound like the sort of thing that officers should be doing all the time, but Operation Spectre lasted for only seven days, which is nothing like enough to make a difference.
I do not believe that these major problems can be tackled with tokenism. Serious crime demands serious answers. Avon and Somerset police and its commissioner have been trumpeting Operation Remedy, which claims to make 100 extra officers available to fight drug dealers. It certainly looks like the first significant increase in manpower in Somerset for several years and will be paid for by a £24 average council tax rise, but I doubt whether Operation Remedy can ever provide an effective remedy, because it only lasts for three months. The chief constable promised that it would make a “big splash”. Really? Operation Remedy comes to an end in June. Unfortunately, as we all know, whether one is a northern or a southern MP, drug barons never stop.
We should remember that the operation is being paid for entirely out of a hefty hike in council tax. The Somerset County Council police panel has given Mrs Mountstevens a hard time, demanding justification for the spending. It wants to ensure that it is not a waste of money, and I think it has very good reason to be cautious.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I spoke to him beforehand and he will understand where I am coming from. A great benefit of community policing in my constituency, and perhaps in his as well, is having police officers in the community—in the estates, on the streets and in the rural communities—bringing in the intelligence on drugs and other things across constituency. Does he think that the police force in his constituency could do more of that? If so, what would he like the Minister to do to ensure that it happens?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend and I share the beauty of Exmoor. He is absolutely right. It is a remote area and there are too many rogues. We know that it is not just drugs, but sheep and cattle and other things. I am grateful for his correction—I meant “county lines”.
The project will also work with health partners to combat the illicit sale of alcohol and cigarettes and review the impact of rural crime. That is good idea, particularly the rural crime review. Rural crime has become a forgotten crisis in many parts of Somerset. Some people feel that it is forgotten and ignored. Believe it or not, sleepy-sounding places such as Stogumber and Crowcombe have some of the highest crime rates outside Taunton, and they are tiny. I invite hon. Members to listen to what one farmer’s wife said when she wrote to me about life in rural Somerset:
“The countryside is under siege. We’ve been subjected to threats, physical and verbal assault, trespass and criminal damage sometimes on a daily basis, but the response to 999 call outs is absolutely dismal. My husband was tending his livestock when he came across two individuals. He was punched severely in the face, but despite ringing 999 no officer showed up for three hours. How much do we have to be injured before rural crime is taken seriously?”
I assure my right hon. Friend the Minister that, unfortunately, that was by no means an isolated example.
Crime has scarred the beautiful countryside and invaded the respectable areas too, including the county town of Taunton. I have achieved some notoriety in this House for my strident criticisms of Taunton and the way it has been ineptly run by an incompetent council. I recently cited crime figures for parts of Taunton which, without doubt, are shocking. However, tonight, I have come armed with an excellent report and offer a great deal of praise to its cross-party authors. It was compiled by five Taunton Deane borough councillors—two are Conservative, two are Labour and the committee was chaired by an Independent councillor. It throws a harsh spotlight on the way crime is being handled or, in some cases, mishandled.
The councillors were given the task of assessing the impact of crime on the town and recommending action. They took the trouble to obtain evidence from residents  and shopkeepers. One shop in Taunton town centre has been broken into twice by the same man in the last two months, costing £1,000 a time. The shopkeeper said:
“I have had to update security because the insurance people aren’t happy. The security fitter said it was absurd because the only place you’d find this kind of security is a bank.”
A retired policeman, who had served for 23 years, said:
“I feel that it is unsafe to take my young family into the town given the presence of aggressive beggars, street drinking and drunkenness.”
One branch of a big name national clothing store in Taunton reckons that it loses £100,000-worth of goods every year through aggressive shoplifting. Many people related their stories of abuse, assault and harassment from drug pushers, rough sleepers and vandals. It happens even in broad daylight, right in the historic heart of a once proud town.
The evidence in the report is grim and depressing. The council committee’s conclusions are equally blunt:
“Neither the council—as the elected custodians of Taunton’s town centre—or the Police are taking the lead to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. Both need to take robust and expedient action”.
Taunton Deane Borough Council rightly introduced public space protection orders three years ago to get a grip on that. But guess what? There is still no shortage of louts in the town but there has not been a single prosecution. That affects us all.
The committee calls the situation “woeful”. It is appalling. Those Taunton councillors concluded that the police lack presence and do not respond to crimes as they should. There is also criticism of Ms Mountstevens. As for the partnership between Taunton council and the police, the report states:
“It lacks leadership, strategy, and accountability”.
The councillors deliberately grilled Taunton council’s antisocial behaviour team. That was an eye opener. The report concludes:
“The team lacked credibility due to their lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues. Taunton’s antisocial behaviour team suffers from a skillset deficit and poor management.”
I do not blame the council for that. I did not make this stuff up. It is one of the very few decent pieces of work to come out of Taunton council for years and for that reason alone, I wonder if anyone in a position of leadership will take it seriously.
Taunton has many more rough sleepers than anywhere else in Somerset. Taunton has a town centre full of boarded up shops and derelict building sites. No wonder travellers invade with their caravans and no wonder drug dealers congregate there. It is such a shame, because big problems should have simple solutions, but they are not being done.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Mr Deputy Speaker, I wrote to my hon. Friend this afternoon to say that I would speak about this. I also made it clear that I would talk about  other areas. The report is very good because it reflects on my area, as well my hon. Friend’s. It shows that all of us have a problem. It is the only report I have seen in 18 years as an MP that has taken this issue in our county to this level. The report is cross-party and I therefore think I have the right to talk about it, but I have made it clear to the hon. Lady in writing. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because Mr Speaker has had his concerns about that as well. I will conclude and allow my right hon. Friend the Minister a couple of minutes to respond.
The same council hired street wardens in 2014, but only for a month. The committee report says it would cost less than £114,000 to employ a proper team for a whole year. Taunton Deane Council want to spend almost £1 million on fences to hide a very nasty site. I do not disagree with that, but it wants to borrow £16 million to build a hotel. Surely it helps my area and all of us to find the money for town wardens.
Policing in Somerset is not cheap: it costs the whole county £284 million a year. I believe it could do more with officers and money. Perhaps they could do that without too much interference from police and crime commissioners. We need much more than a token operation. A one-week clampdown on knife crime does not cut any mustard with anybody. Sticking plasters are not enough. There is a clear role to be played by local authorities. Some are doing it well, but others are lagging way behind. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree with what I have said.

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) has been in this place for 18 years and we know him to be a tireless champion of the interests of his constituents, as well as the interests of rural areas and the need for, as he put it, a fair share for the shires. I congratulate him on securing the debate.
My hon. Friend asks me where I agree with him. I certainly agree with him and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) in expressing admiration for the work of frontline officers. They are extremely stretched at the moment. We ask a lot of them. They have to do difficult work under difficult circumstances. It is good to hear local Members of Parliament stand up to express their admiration and thanks for their work. I also thank my hon. Friend for recognising the importance of serious organised crime in the fundamental shift in the threat to public security that we are trying to police and protect our constituents from. He understands that, and I thank him for reflecting it in his comments. I hope he will welcome the updated Government serious organised crime strategy and the increased resources going into that area. They are necessary for exactly the reasons he sets out.
My hon. Friend left the House in no doubt about his view on the police and crime commissioner. All I would say is that she was elected. I hope that he agrees with me that the introduction of police and crime commissioners has sharpened the local accountability of the police. The bottom line is that the police and crime commissioner for Avon and Somerset has a job to do. She is accountable to the public and if the public of Somerset do not like  what she does they can vote her out. That is the strength of the system we have introduced.
My hon. Friend talked about the task and finish group, and the report into Taunton. I very much take on board your point, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) is not in her place. I also accept, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset is clear that there are ramifications for his constituents. There are clearly mixed views about the accuracy of the report. I have read it and it raises important questions, both for the police and crime commissioner and the local borough council, about how resources are allocated across the county, the effectiveness of the local crime partnership and the efficacy of the response to 999 calls in rural areas. I am sure that they will be responsive to that report.
My hon. Friend is passionate about the need for proper attention to be paid to rural crime. I hope that he takes some satisfaction from the fact that the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which, in my experience, is an extremely powerful body for driving change across the police system, published a rural affairs strategy last July that reflects operational and policing priorities on rural crime. There are six priority themes: farm, machinery, plant and vehicle theft—I know my hon. Friend will welcome that—livestock offences, fuel theft, equine crime, fly-tipping and poaching. I know that the police chiefs are very aware of the need to give appropriate priority to rural crime.
On the specific report, as the House would expect, these are local decisions in a local debate on which it is not for me to opine. In response to my hon. Friend I can say what central Government are doing to support the battle against crime and disorder in Somerset and south Gloucestershire. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) is entirely right: the research is very clear about the importance of bearing down on what is sometimes misleadingly called low-level crime, because all the evidence says that if we do not get on top of that, it can escalate to bigger problems.
Since being police Minister, my priority has been to get more resources into policing, because I recognised from a very early stage that the system is too stretched. The reality is that as a result of the actions that we have taken, as a country we will be investing almost £2 billion more next year in our police system than we were three years ago. Police forces up and down the country are recruiting additional officers and staff—almost 3,000, including at least 100 in Avon and Somerset—so we are heading in the right direction. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset and other colleagues who are concerned about this issue that this is a stepping stone towards the spending review, which is the next major event in shaping the resources available to our policing. I have given the undertaking, as has the Home Secretary, that police funding is an absolute priority for us in the spending review. Within that, I have also undertaken to look again at the issue of fair funding. I note, for example, that Avon and Somerset has fewer police officers per head of population than the national average. These are issues that we need to address through the comprehensive spending review.
In the meantime, the Government are investing money to support the police in better co-ordinating their efforts on county lines—that point was raised in the debate—  because of course this crosses borders. We are already seeing the impact of additional investment through increased arrests and increased safeguarding of vulnerable children. Our support for the police—not just Avon and Somerset, but the whole system—goes further than that in terms of additional powers for the police, as they have requested, whether those are knife crime protection orders or the Offensive Weapons Bill, which is moving through Parliament and will make it even harder to buy and possess the most dangerous weapons. I know that the theft of vehicles is an issue particularly on farms and in rural areas. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are disturbed by the increase in vehicle crime. In fact, I have convened a taskforce to look specifically at it. The taskforce brings together industry, including the insurance industry, and all stakeholders to bear down on the problem.
Finally on our support for our police and our ability to hold them to account for their performance, we continue to attach enormous importance to the system of accountability we have set up, not just with police and crime commissioners but with independent inspection, which means that we can identify what good looks like, where it is and where things need to improve.
Finally, I would point out that Avon and Somerset police, stretched though they are, are rated by Her Majesty’s independent inspectorate as good for efficiency, legitimacy and effectiveness. They are also probably best in class across the system for their work in exploring how the police can better manage and use data to predict demand on them, which will be a large part of the future of policing, and we are supporting them actively in that, with significant investment over recent years. I congratulate the leadership of the force and its officers on their leadership in that area and their achievement in being rated good across all pillars of Her Majesty’s independent inspection regime.
I acknowledge the points that my hon. Friend has made, which will have been noted in Somerset at the top of the force and by the police and crime commissioner, and I close, as he did, by commending the work of frontline officers across Avon and Somerset for the excellent work they do under extremely demanding circumstances.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.